Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Jaka Kranjc <lynx AT mages.ath.cx>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] splitting cvs spells
  • Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 15:25:21 +0200

On Sunday 08 October 2006 22:18, Andraž "ruskie" Levstik wrote:
> > The only real issue I can see with the current solutions is that they're
> > not immediately obvious to the user. So what would make sense imho would
> > be a way to query for versions. An ad-hoc solution would be to have a
> > variable in DETAILS that says what versions there are, including
> > alternate spells if there are any. I'm not proposing that we do that,
> > it's just to show that there are other ways to handle this than adding
> > some "native" multi-version support to sorcery.
>
> OK so idea here would be:
> add a VERSIONS field into DETAILS that lists all available versions of a
> spell and that sorcery would display first and only then drop back to
> VERSION if it's missing
>
> I think this would satisfy a lot of people and imho it is a usability
> feature.
Why would this be good? An user gets the version info from cast, a codex
listing or gaze. Only gaze of the three can't deal with multiversioned spells
properly - gaze version(s) shows only one.

So the way I see it, we should only improve gaze, rather than complicate the
spellwriting matter with another var.

Arwed's suggestion of listing similar spells in it sounds complicated too,
these "spell groups" would need to have this var in sync and the updates
could get tedious. Let's say we have spell a, a-old, a-cvs and a-daily.
Whenever any was updated, all the others would need to have that var updated
too. Where would this be used anyway? The more I think of it, the less I like
this idea (yeah, I know it's an ad hoc one). KISS.


Regarding the function - are we still refraining from using bash3 stuff? I'm
for a grep based solution, since I think more people are familiar with grep
than with the bash =~ operator and I doubt there is any significant speed
loss.


If I try to conclude, there are two faces of this problem: presentation
(gaze)
and interfacing exsisting code to simplify use (^that function).

--
We cannot command nature except by obeying her. --Sir Francis Bacon
Have a sourcerous day! www.sourcemage.org

Attachment: pgpmjZmqSHqPR.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page